High Court acknowledges Department's Revision against Appellate Authority's orders on seized gold; directs review by Revisional Authority.

The High Court acknowledged the Revision filed by the Department against the orders of the Appellate Authority regarding the non-execution of re-shipment orders for seized gold. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Revisional Authority for review within eight weeks. Emphasizing compliance with the Revisional process, the Court closed the Writ Petitions without awarding costs, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-execution of orders regarding re-shipment of gold by customs authorities.
2. Compliance with directions of the Appellate Authority.
3. Pending Revision filed by the Department against the orders of the Appellate Authority.
4. Amendments in Notification No.12/2012 and Rule 6 of the Baggage Rules, 1998.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners in two separate cases had gold seized and were ordered re-shipment to the country of origin with fines and penalties. Despite appeals and orders for reduction in fines, the customs authorities did not execute the orders, leading to grievances and subsequent legal action before the High Court.

2. The petitioners argued that as per a Supreme Court ruling and a circular by CBEC, it is the duty of the Department to comply with directions of the Appellate Authority. They sought appropriate directions for the execution of the orders in their favor.

3. The Respondents, represented by the standing counsel, stated that the Department had filed a Revision and a stay petition against the Appellate Authority's orders. The Revisional Authority had issued notices for the petitioners to present their case, indicating a pending process for further review and decision.

4. After hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged the Revision filed by the Department and directed the petitioners to appear before the Revisional Authority to present their submissions. The Revisional Authority was instructed to dispose of the revisions within eight weeks, ensuring due process is followed.

5. The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with the above directions, emphasizing compliance with the Revisional process and the need for timely resolution. No costs were awarded, and the related Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.

---